People v. Dukes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dukes

254 A.D.2d 149, 681 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11017

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 20, 1998·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J., at suppression hearing; Bruce Allen, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 29, 1996, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

After observing an individual hand defendant money in a furtive exchange for an unidentified object in an area with a high incidence of narcotics trafficking, the experienced officer had probable cause to arrest defendant (People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835; People v Schlaich, 218 AD2d 398, lv denied 88 NY2d 994). Accordingly, defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied.

Defendant has failed to preserve his contention that a comment of the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial (People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641), and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review such claim, we would find that the isolated comment constituted a fair inference to be drawn from the evidence (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Nicholas Figueroa, J., at suppression hearing; Bruce Allen, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered May 29, 1996, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

After observing an individual hand defendant money in a furtive exchange for an unidentified object in an area with a high incidence of narcotics trafficking, the experienced officer had probable cause to arrest defendant (People v Jones, 90 NY2d 835; People v Schlaich, 218 AD2d 398, lv denied 88 NY2d 994). Accordingly, defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied.

Defendant has failed to preserve his contention that a comment of the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial (People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641), and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review such claim, we would find that the isolated comment constituted a fair inference to be drawn from the evidence (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396). Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

People v. Dukes, 254 A.D.2d 149, 681 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11017 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

254 A.D.2d 149 (People v. Dukes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related